Aspenplus Carbon Capture Modeling

Modeling and Cost Evaluation
of CO2 Capture Processes

Rate-Based Distillation and
Integration Economics
Industry Webinar 02 May 2012

Josh Stanislowski & Tony Snyder, Energy & Environmental Research Center
Sanjeev Mullick & Rob Hockley, AspenTech
© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved

Disclaimer
Aspen Technology may provide information regarding possible

future product developments including new products, product
features, product interfaces, integration, design, architecture,
etc. that may be represented as “product roadmaps.”
Any such information is for discussion purposes only and does
not constitute a commitment by Aspen Technology to do or
deliver anything in these product roadmaps or otherwise.
Any such commitment must be explicitly set forth in a written
contract between the customer and Aspen Technology,
executed by an authorized officer of each company.
© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 2

Guest Presenters – EERC
 Josh Stanislowski‚ Research Manager‚ EERC

Josh’s principal areas of interest and expertise include fossil fuel
conversion with emphasis on CO2 capture, gasification systems
analysis‚ pollution control‚ and process modeling. He has extensive
experience with systems engineering‚ process controls‚ project
management‚ and AspenTech software.
 Tony Snyder‚ Research Engineer‚ EERC

Tony’s principal areas of interest and expertise include alternative
fuels development‚ conceptual modeling and economic analysis of
novel processes‚ and process optimization through experimental
design and statistical data analysis.

Improve Performance and Reduce Capital
Costs Using Rate-Based Distillation to
Model CO2 Capture Systems
AspenTech Webinar: Modeling and Cost Evaluation of Carbon
Capture Processes
May 2, 2012
Josh Stanislowski and Tony Snyder
© 2012 University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center.

Agenda Topics
See how the EERC was able to:

• Model the entire CO2 capture process with Aspen Plus
and Rate-Based Distillation—from coal combustion to
amine scrubbing with solvent recycle.
• Use pilot-scale performance data to apply models to
advanced solvents.
• Evaluate the performance of baseline and novel
solvents.
• Determine the CO2 baseline capture rates from coal-
derived flue gas using monoethanolamine (MEA).
• Estimate CO2 capture costs using Aspen Process
Economic Analyzer (APEA).
5
EERC . . . The International Center for Applied Energy Technology
Presentation Outline
• Project overview
• Development of Aspen models
– Base combustion models
– Integrated combustion models
• CO2 capture models
– Absorber–stripper column design
– Integrated models
– Heat-stable salt (HSS) formation models
• Full-scale capture models
• Economic analysis
• Conclusions
6
Advancing the state of CO2 capture by evaluating
and developing those technologies that are
nearest to commercial viability for utility
applications.
• Multiple-phase program.
• Includes funding from private sector

sponsors (27), the North Dakota
Industrial Commission, and the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE)
National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL).
• Identify technology challenges and

develop strategies for cost-effective
and efficient implementation at the
power utility scale.
State of Wyoming
Clean Coal
8 Technology Fund
Summary of CO2 Capture Technologies
9
Combustion Test Facility (CTF)
– 550,000 Btu/hr • Features
– Upfired - Air preheater and heat
– Air- or O2-fired exchangers
– Multifuel capability - Adjustable-swirl burner
- Deposition section
• Coal, biomass, gas, liquid fuel, sludge, and
- Numerous ports
municipal solid waste
- Selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) reactor
- Baghouse
- Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
- Sulfur scrubber
• Testing of fuels and additives
- Fouling and slagging
- Corrosion
- Hg
- NOx
- SOx
- CO2 capture
- Particulates
- Heat flux
- Infrared (IR) flame
characterization
10
CO2 Capture System
• 10-inch-diameter columns
designed to be flexible.
• Capable of evaluating
different solvents with
column height adjustment.
• Packed column with the
ability to easily change
packing type.
• Very highly instrumented to
allow for high control and
greater measurement.
11
11
12
Postcombustion
Testing
– MEA (30 wt%)
– Hitachi H3-1
– Methyldiethanolamine
(MDEA)–piperazine
– Huntsman solvent additive
– Baker Hughes additives
13
Aspen Modeling Approach
• Aspen Plus® v7.2 is utilized for developing mass and

energy balance and process flow.
– Combustion models
– CO2 capture models (Aspen Rate-Based Distillation)
• APEA is used for sizing equipment and developing costs.
– Capital cost
– Operating cost
– Considers entire plant costs
• Aspen Plus mass and energy are able to be directly
exported into APEA for equipment sizing and costing,
allowing rapid comparisons of process alternatives.
14
Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA)
One-to-Many Mapping

Base Combustion Model
Base Model of the CTF (air-fired)
SO2SCRUB
HEATEX BAHOUSE
B1
HOTGAS COOLGAS FILT-GAS SCRUBGAS 1
DECOMP
AF-CTF
COAL
HEAT1 SOLIDS SULFUR
Q
HEAT2
MIXER
CHN
COAL-AIR
Notes:
PRIM-AIR
PRIMHEAT – Used Peng–Robinson equation of state.
– Compared our results with real data to
PHEAT1
2NDHEAT
determine heat loss in the combustor.
PHEAT2
2ND-AIR
Caveats:
– Built-in coal heat-of-formation correlations are based on bituminous coal only.
– User input allowed, but bituminous coal correlations are still used in heat-of-formation calculations.
– Sulfur analysis appears to have a large impact on heat-of-formation calculation, may not be valid
for fuels with less than 1% sulfur.
16
Absorber–Stripper Column Design
• Two phases:
– Design support for columns
– Detailed model development based on the results of
the pilot-scale test runs
17
Integrated Absorber and Stripper
Models
An advanced integrated absorber−stripper system with the following features:
• Interconnected absorber and stripper columns
• Heat exchangers to maintain required temperatures while minimizing
energy loss
• Complete recycle of the lean amine stream
• Automatic determination and optimization of the makeup stream
FLUEGAS2
MAKE UP
ABSORBE R
COOLER
LEANMEA
CO2OUT
FLUEGAS
LEANMEA 3 ST RIPPER
HEAT EX
RICHMEA RICHMEA2
LEANMEA 2
18
Integrated Combustion–Capture
Model
• Coupled the combustion model with all back-end flue gas-cleaning units, including the CO2
capture unit.
• Convergence becomes much more difficult because of the complexity of the model equations.
19
HSS Formation Models
Goals
• Predict heat-stable amine salt (HSAS) formation in the system.
• Obtain better understanding of the impact of flue gas impurities on CO2 capture
technologies.
Challenges
• Missing data:
– Equilibrium constants and kinetic parameters of desired reactions.
– Heats and free energies of formation of new compounds.
– Physical property data, e.g., heat capacity, ion mobility, diffusivity, critical parameters,
etc.
• Convergence difficulties:
– Solids formation.
– Sensitivity to stream and column variables.
• Ultimately, modeling the formation of HSAS in Aspen Plus was deemed not feasible at this
time.
– Degradation rates from pilot-scale data were used to aid in economic analysis.
20
21
ClickSulfate
to editConcentration
Master title style
8000 8000
MEA
7000 7000
H3-1
Huntsman Additive
6000 6000
MDEA-Piperazine
Sulfate Concentration, ppm
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Day
22
Model Calibration/Validation
Parameter Model Pilot Plant Data

CO2 Capture 69.5% ~70%
Reboiler Duty 150,000 Btu/hr 140,000 Btu/hr
MEA Flow into Absorber 6 gpm 3–6 gpm
Diluted MEA Makeup Rate 0.6 gph None
• Sensitivity studies showed that to get 90% CO2 capture, the reboiler duty had to be
increased. Increasing the MEA flow rate had only a small impact on capture level.
• The reboiler duty was increased on the pilot-scale unit, and 90% capture was achieved.
• Additional model vs. pilot plant performance comparisons are ongoing.
23
Scale-Up of Pilot Model
• Created an Aspen Plus process model to represent pilot-

scale CO2 capture process.
• Scaled-up model for 500-MW coal-fired power plant.
– Aspen Plus model originally represented 50-lb coal/hr
pilot-scale system.
– Coal feed rate increased to 6000 tons/day to
represent 500-MWe power plant.
– Rate-based Aspen Plus modeling software calculated
size of absorber and stripper towers for 90% CO2
capture.
• Estimated capital and operating costs with APEA.
24
500-MW Aspen Plus Model for CO2
Capture
• 90% of CO2 is removed from

flue gas in absorber tower by
MEA solvent.
• MEA losses from degradation
are estimated from pilot-scale
data.
• Wash zone minimizes MEA
evaporation losses in
absorber tower.
25
Aspen Plus Model CO2 Compression
and Liquefaction
• CO2 is compressed to 190

psi.
• Water is removed in CO2
dryer.
• CO2 is liquefied in condenser
by cooling to −26°C.
• Pressure pumped to 2000 psi
for pipeline transport.
26
APEA Methodology
• Aspen Plus model imported into APEA

– Coal combustion and flue gas cleaning not included in
economic model because the focus was on
estimating the CO2 capture costs (standard power
configuration).
– Specific types of equipment were assigned to each
process unit.
– Equipment sizing was based on flow rates and real-
world practical availability.
– Cost estimates are for construction in the United
States.
– APEA determined that three CO2 capture trains were
required for 500-MW plant because of equipment-
sizing constraints.
27
Modeling Advanced Solvents
• Difficult-to-model advanced solvents in Aspen Plus:

– Composition unknown (proprietary).
– Some advanced solvent components are not part of
the Aspen Plus standard database.
• Physical properties
• Equilibrium constants
• Reaction kinetics
• Utilized pilot plant data to determine difference between
MEA and the advanced solvents.
• Used indices to perform economic analysis for the
advanced solvents.
28
CO2 Capture vs. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
MEA
CO2 Capture, %
60 60
H3-1
50 MDEA/PZ 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
3
29 Liquid to Gas Ratio, gallons/1000 actual ft
CO2 Capture vs.
Regeneration Energy
100 100
MEA CO2 Capture (4 psig) Stripper Pressure @ 4-6 psig
H3-1 CO2 Capture (4 psig)
95 MDEA/PZ CO2 Capture (6 psig)
95
90 90
85 85
CO2 Capture, %
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65
60 1680 - 1790 Btu/lb

60
1240 Btu/lb 1575 - 1610 Btu/lb
55 55
50 50
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100
30
Regeneration
EERC Energy,
. . . The International Center Btu/lb
for Applied EnergyCO
Technology
2
Capital Cost Comparison
$300,000,000
$250,000,000
$200,000,000 Other
Capital Cost US$
Boiler
ASU
$150,000,000
CO2 Liquefaction
Stripper Tower
Heat Exchangers
$100,000,000
Absorber Tower
$50,000,000
$-
MEA (old plant) H3-1 (old plant) MEA (new plant) H3-1 (new plant) Oxy-Fired
Scenario
31
Energy Penalty
Based on a 500-MW Plant

32
Overall Cost Summary
MEA H3-1 MEA H3-1

Millions of US$ (old plant) (old plant) (new plant) (new plant)
Total Capital Cost 237 220 237 220

Operating Cost 117 97 86 76
Utilities Cost 91 73 63 54
Annual Cost (total) 166 143 136 122
CO2 Capture Cost, $ per
ton 46 40 38 34
CO2 Avoidance Cost, $ per
ton 67 52 48 41
Rate Increase, $/kWh 0.058 0.046 0.042 0.036
Base Electricity Cost of $0.08 per kilowatt-hour
33
Cost of CO2 Avoided
$100.00
Lost Revenue
$90.00 Operating Costs - Other
Capital Recovery
$80.00 Operating Costs - Utility
$70.00
US$ / ton CO2 Avoided
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
MEA (Old H3-1 (Old MDEA/PZ (Old MEA (New H3-1 (New MDEA PZ Oxy-Fired
Plant) Plant) Plant) Plant) Plant) (New Plant)
Scenario
34
Modeling Conclusions
• The EERC has developed reasonable models for coal combustion

processes and CO2 capture using Aspen Plus software.
• Rate-based distillation models are better than equilibrium models in

simulating the CO2 capture process.
• Currently not modeling HSS formation.
• APEA incorporated Aspen Plus model to estimate capital and

operating expenses.
35
Economic Analysis Conclusions
• Utilities (steam/electricity) and equipment capital are the
largest contributors to cost.
• An estimated 7% reduction in capital cost results from the
use of the advanced solvent.
• The advanced solvent provides a savings potential of $6
per ton of CO2 over MEA when electricity cost is
$0.08/kWh.
• Over the course of 1 year, the advanced solvent has a
savings potential of US$23 million versus MEA.
• The base COE has a large impact on the cost of CO2
capture.
• Energy penalty is significantly reduced with H3-1 solvent.
36
PCO2C: Phase II
Pilot-scale testing of CO2 capture technologies
Over ten test campaigns evaluating eight different technologies
• Several technologies will be further evaluated, and new novel approaches will
be tested.
• Solvents: Huntsman, Hitachi, CanSolv (Shell), and Advanced Systems (NSG Contactor)
• Solid sorbents (NETL)
• Oxy-fired combustion (completed)
• Other solvent-based technologies: ION Engineering
• Slurry-based approach (C-Quest)
• Significant modeling effort to determine most efficient approaches to CO2
capture system integration with power systems.

37
Steam Extraction – Retrofitting
• Analyses have shown that the
extraction of low-pressure steam from
the steam cycle is an efficient
technology to cover the energy
demand for solvent regeneration in
the stripper.
• The different configurations make it

necessary to work on different
approaches to how the challenges of
steam extraction can be met.
• Study took the base case (withdraw

steam in the intermediate–low-
pressure crossover) and compared to
Cases a, c, and d shown at left.
Lucquiaud, M.; Gibbins, J. Steam Cycle Options for the Retrofit of Coal and Gas
Power Plants with Post-Combustion Capture. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 1812–
1819.
38
Modified Steam Cycle for Steam
Extraction
39
Option A
• The throttle valve is exchanged to expand the

extracted steam.
40
Option C
• Modify Option A by additional back-pressure

turbine added between the crossover outlet after
steam extraction and low-pressure turbine inlet.
41
Option D
• Modify Option C by exchanging both back-

pressure turbines with throttle valves.
42
[1] Based on HHV
Results
Parameter Base Case Option A Option C Option D
Gross Electric Output, MW 482.3 512.4 520.1 465.4
Net Electric Output, MW 338.6 368.7 376.3 321.6
Gross Plant Heat Rate, Btu/kWh 11544.0 10865.8 10705.7 11964.8

(kJ/kWh) (12179.6) (11464.0) (11295.1) (12623.5)
Net Plant Heat Rate, Btu/kWh 16446.9 15103.8 14796.2 17314.5

(kJ/kWh) (17352.4) (15935.4) (15610.8) (18267.8)
Steam Flow Rate for Regeneration,

804.41 (723.96) 866.37 (779.73) 866.37 (779.73) 804.41 (723.96)
tons/hr (tonnes/hr)
Net Plant Efficiency, % 20.75 22.59 23.06 19.71
43
Conclusions
• Aspen Plus is an effective tool for evaluating the energy

penalty associated with steam extraction for CO2 stripping.
• The benefits and challenges associated with each option
are determined in a modeling environment.
• Additional modeling will utilize APEA to determine which
scenario provides the best economic benefit.
44
Contact Information
Energy & Environmental Research Center

University of North Dakota
15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202-9018
World Wide Web: www.undeerc.org

Telephone No. (701) 777-5000
Fax No. (701) 777-5181
Josh Stanislowski, Research Manager Tony Snyder, Research Engineer

jstanislowski@undeerc.org tsnyder@undeerc.org
(701) 777-5087 (701) 777-6123
45
Want to see similar results?
Consider a training class from AspenTech
http://training.aspentech.com
Aspen Plus: Process Modeling Training
Aspen Plus: Process Modeling (EAP101)

May 7, 2012 – Denver, CO
May 14, 2012 – Calgary, AB, Canada
May 21, 2012 – Reading, UK
May 21, 2012 – Virtual-Latin America
http://support.aspentech.com/supportpublictrain/CourseInfo.asp?course=EAP101
• Gain the practical skills and knowledge to begin modeling new and existing
processes
• Build and troubleshoot flowsheet simulations
• Reduce process design time by testing various plant configurations
• Determine optimal process conditions to improve current processes
• Help de-bottleneck constraining parts of a process

CO2 Removal Training
CO2 Removal Processes Using Aspen Plus

(EAP2510)
May 9, 2012 – Virtual- Americas
May 28, 2012 – Reading, UK
July 30, 2012 – Reading, UK
August 13, 2012 – Houston, TX
http://support.aspentech.com/supportpublictrain/CourseInfo.asp
?course=EAP2510
• Determine and properly setup the necessary component physical properties and
reactions needed to model CO2 removal processes using Aspen Plus.
• Learn the steps involved in modeling CO2 removal processes. Model absorbers and
regenerators systems using chemical and physical solvents.
• Setup, run and interpret results for a rate-based model of a CO2 Absorber.
• Use detailed rate-based modeling to understand and improve separation
performance.

Aspen Rate Based Distillation Training
Aspen Rate Based Distillation (EAP251)

July 5, 2012 – Reading, UK
July 19, 2012 – Houston, TX
November 11, 2012 – Reading, UK
November 5, 2012 – Pune, India
http://support.aspentech.com/supportpublictrain/CourseInfo.asp?course=EAP251
• Learn how to use the Aspen Rate-Based Distillation to predict tray

efficiency or HETP and evaluate column set up.
• Learn how to use Rate-Based Distillation model to match real column data.
• Create accurate simulations of reactive and non-reactive column
separations.

Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA)
Training
Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (EEE102)

June 11, 2012 – Houston, TX
July 24, 2012 – Tokyo, Japan
August 6, 2012 – Houston, TX
August 6, 2012 – Reading, UK
http://support.aspentech.com/supportpublictrain/CourseInfo.asp?course=EEE102
• Maximize your company’s return on investment (ROI) and reduce the

risk involved in making decisions.
• Define your project more accurately by integrating operating cost,
capital cost, and schedule.
• Reduce estimation variability by adopting a consistent methodology.
• Increase costing accuracy by generating detailed reports for analysis,
traceable to line items not lump sums of money.

Online Training
Easy to Access Training Content
 Convenient, on-demand access

from inside the product
– Aspen Plus, Aspen HYSYS
– Aspen EDR, Aspen Economic Evaluation
– Aspen Basic Engineering
 Superior user experience

– Getting Started
– What’s New
– Multiproduct Integration
– Best Practices
 Library of rich training content

 Links to additional support and
training resources
All from within the product!

Aspen Search – Process Industry First
Find models quickly
Benefits:
• Reuse models
• Promote collaboration
Quickly find the
best model
Currently available
with Aspen Plus
and Aspen HYSYS
http://www.aspentech.com/v7/aspen_search.aspx
Upcoming and On-Demand Webinars
 Upcoming Webinars:
• Improve Predictability of Pipeline Project Costs with Aspen Capital
Cost Estimator
• June 5, 2012 – Register at:
http://www.aspentech.com/events/webseminars.aspx
• More webinars for June – August to be announced soon
 On-Demand Webinars:
• Visit: http://www.aspentech.com/events/ondemand_webinar.cfm

OPTIMIZE™ 2013
Global Conference
Join us in Boston for the

industry’s must-attend event!
OPTIMIZE 2013
6 – 8 May 2013
The Westin Waterfront Hotel
Boston, MA USA
For more information, visit

www.aspentech.com/agc

Questions?

Contact Information
Sanjeev Mullick, Industry Marketing Director, AspenTech

Email: sanjeev.mullick@aspentech.com
Rob Hockley, Senior Business Consultant, AspenTech

Email: rob.hockley@aspentech.com
For any Aspen Plus product family communication:

Email: AspenPlus.Advantage@aspentech.com
For more information on Aspen Plus and related products:

http://www.aspentech.com/core/aspen-plus.aspx

Contact Information
Energy & Environmental Research Center

University of North Dakota
15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202-9018
World Wide Web: www.undeerc.org

Telephone No. (701) 777-5000
Fax No. (701) 777-5181
Josh Stanislowski, Research Manager Tony Snyder, Research Engineer

jstanislowski@undeerc.org tsnyder@undeerc.org
(701) 777-5087 (701) 777-6123
57

Aspenplus Carbon Capture Modeling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aspenplus Carbon Capture Modeling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling and Cost Evaluation

of CO2 Capture Processes

Industry Webinar 02 May 2012

© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved

Aspen Technology may provide information regarding possible

© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 2

 Josh Stanislowski‚ Research Manager‚ EERC

 Tony Snyder‚ Research Engineer‚ EERC

© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 3

Josh Stanislowski and Tony Snyder

© 2012 University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center.

See how the EERC was able to:

• Includes funding from private sector

• Identify technology challenges and

– Huntsman solvent additive

– Baker Hughes additives

• Aspen Plus® v7.2 is utilized for developing mass and

© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 15

Parameter Model Pilot Plant Data

Reboiler Duty 150,000 Btu/hr 140,000 Btu/hr

MEA Flow into Absorber 6 gpm 3–6 gpm

Diluted MEA Makeup Rate 0.6 gph None

• Created an Aspen Plus process model to represent pilot-

• 90% of CO2 is removed from

• CO2 is compressed to 190

• Aspen Plus model imported into APEA

• Difficult-to-model advanced solvents in Aspen Plus:

60 1680 - 1790 Btu/lb

Based on a 500-MW Plant

MEA H3-1 MEA H3-1

Total Capital Cost 237 220 237 220

Base Electricity Cost of $0.08 per kilowatt-hour

• The EERC has developed reasonable models for coal combustion

• Rate-based distillation models are better than equilibrium models in

• Currently not modeling HSS formation.

• APEA incorporated Aspen Plus model to estimate capital and

EERC . . . The International Center for Applied Energy Technology

• The different configurations make it

• Study took the base case (withdraw

• The throttle valve is exchanged to expand the

• Modify Option A by additional back-pressure

• Modify Option C by exchanging both back-

Gross Electric Output, MW 482.3 512.4 520.1 465.4

Net Electric Output, MW 338.6 368.7 376.3 321.6

Gross Plant Heat Rate, Btu/kWh 11544.0 10865.8 10705.7 11964.8

Net Plant Heat Rate, Btu/kWh 16446.9 15103.8 14796.2 17314.5

Steam Flow Rate for Regeneration,

Net Plant Efficiency, % 20.75 22.59 23.06 19.71

• Aspen Plus is an effective tool for evaluating the energy

Energy & Environmental Research Center

World Wide Web: www.undeerc.org

Josh Stanislowski, Research Manager Tony Snyder, Research Engineer

Consider a training class from AspenTech

Aspen Plus: Process Modeling (EAP101)

© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 47

CO2 Removal Processes Using Aspen Plus

© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 48

Aspen Rate Based Distillation (EAP251)

• Learn how to use the Aspen Rate-Based Distillation to predict tray

© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 49

Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (EEE102)

• Maximize your company’s return on investment (ROI) and reduce the

© 2012 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 50

 Convenient, on-demand access